Blinded by science.
Scientist - by Stephen Sweny
Many years ago a study was published which found that children who had been verbally, emotionally or physically abused were likely to smoke cigarettes as adults. Forgive me for not providing a citation, but bear with me, because this study might as well be fictional, given where I’m going with this.
“Being mean and cruel to your kids turns them into cigarette smokers!” might have concluded some observers. “These kids were brats and their parents were not abusing them. They were administering tough love. These ‘bad’ kids were bound to smoke anyways.” other might have said.
It appeals to conventional American logic that stressed out kids grow up to carry those stresses into adulthood and seek solace in inhaled nicotine. But are these things really related? Can there be a causality established between those childhood experiences and adulthood nicotine addiction?
One of the things we’re learning in psychiatry and addiction medicine is that people tend to have a “drug of choice”. Prescription or illicit, all psychoactive drugs affect the brain in similar ways. Nicotine stimulates the frontal lobes - much like caffeine, methamphetamine and Ritalin do. Many people with ADD/ ADHD tend to be smokers because they are actually self-medicating. Their drug of choice lets them get through their day in a functional and productive way.
From personal experience, ADD/ADHD kids can be a challenge - to say the least. They do not pay attention, they forget your instruction and they fail to follow through. That can drive a parent batty. In fact, ADD/ADHD people are often conflict-driven. This also stimulates their frontal lobes. Some in the field say that ADD/ADHD kids actually thrive on this conflict and friction and the yelling is their stimulant.
It is entirely possible - at least in a portion of the cases studied for the publication - that the kids had ADD/ADHD and their parents had bad coping and parenting skills. That led to the yelling and the hitting. Along with the smoking it was a consequence of the same dysfunction. And the smoking was not likely caused by the childhood experiences.
While I am not postulating a revised interpretation of this research I do think that the way one asks a question dictates, or at least frames, the answer. That applies to data collection and analysis and interpretation. The latter depends on the original questions posed, what the investigators do and don’t know about the subject and - at times - their agenda (conscious or otherwise).
There is an incredible amount of wine-related research (in biology, medicine and economics) being conducted these days. For a number of reasons these studies are often sensationalized and I don’t think we can entirely absolve some authors of their role in that.
I’m not suggesting vast conspiracies in academia to affect public thinking and the course of history. For the most part, the people conducting research (be it wine-related, or physics or virology) tend to be good, honest, well-intentioned people. Besides just trying to survive by publishing, sometimes they look at the banal in novel ways. Occasionally, that yields breakthroughs. Often it adds to obscure, esoteric trivia that never sees the light of day.
However, there are also unintended interpretations and consequences of many investigations. To me, the surge in wine-related research of recent years is a double edged sword: Medicine can stand to gain much from investigating resveratrol, but those who forget that moderation is key can suffer gastritis, stomach ulcers and cirrhosis. We can learn about our senses and brain respond to wine and secondary cues about it, but the findings of such studies can be turned against the consumer resulting in overpriced bottles with eye-catching labels containing something which no longer resembles wine.
I am not calling for any action to stop or stifle any kind of research topics. But I do urge you to stop and think the next time you read a press release about some new wine-related research. Are the right dots being connected? Could other factors be at play? What implications does this research have for consumers? What consequences will it have for wine producers? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if these results are interpreted a particular way?
Email & Share
June 25th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Arthur,
You bring up some great points. At this point in wine research, money is becoming harder and harder to come by - less is flowing into programs such as UC Davis and CSU Fresno than ever before from both private and public sources. And less and less will continue to flow in through the public realm - do you think the general public is excited about using their tax dollars to fund research involving ALCOHOL?!?!?!?
Therefore, researchers in the field have had to do peripheral studies at times to ensure grant money keeps coming in. Antioxidants and chocolates? Conducted by Andrew Waterhouse, the acting head of the Viticulture and Enology Dept. at UC Davis, is simply one example of this.
And if the results get ’sensationalized’ a bit to gain more attention, I’m not sure how bad that is. Not that I am in favor of National Enquirer-like sensationalism . . . but as you know, sometimes you have to get a little ‘crazy’ to get noticed . . .
Where am I going with this? Not sure . . . but if you are looking for ‘objective’ interpretations of ANYTHING, you will have a hard time finding them (-:
Cheers and great job with the new blog!
July 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
You raise some interesting points.
All too often, the press (and consequently the public) ignore the concept that correlation does not beget causation. Still, the factors are still related even if they are not causal. Your premise that ADHD kids are pre-disposed to nicotine addiction and are also more likely to be abused, (I have no idea if this is true) is still a real relationship even if it is not causal.
From that standpoint, the research into wine is perfectly valid and helpful as a starting point for more research.
Most things the press discusses is more complicated than it seems Just consider the issue of eating locally to lower the carbon footprint of your food:
Last year the Financial Times published a story that cited research showing that locally sourced food is not always better for the environment. Of course, many people objected to the findings and have raised concerns over some of the scientists’ calculations. I don’t know which side is correct, but the controversy clearly shows that the issue is not as clear cut as it would seem.
I think the same is true for the wine research to which you allude. Maybe there is a link between price and perception. Maybe there are some wine producers and distributors that are selling lousy wine at ridiculous prices so that cheaper wine looks better on average. Or maybe the wine consumer knows what they like when they are blind to price.
Who knows, but it is clearly more complicated than most people appreciate.